(Adopted at the 1,180th meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on June 19, 2001;
Amended for the first time in accordance with the Decision of the Supreme People's Court on Amending the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Patent Disputes adopted at the 1,570th meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on February 25, 2013;
Amended for the second time in accordance with the Decision of the Supreme People's Court on Amending the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Patent Disputes adopted at the 1,641st meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on January 19, 2015; Amended in accordance with the Decision of the Supreme People's Court on Amending the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Disputes over Infringement of Patent Rights, etc. issued on the 1823th meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on December 23, 2020, and shall come into force on January 1, 2021)

To correctly try cases involving patent disputes, the following provisions are hereby issued in accordance with the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, and other laws:

Article 1 A people's court shall accept the following cases involving patent disputes:
(1) A case filed for a dispute over the right to apply for a patent;
(2) A case filed for a dispute over patent ownership;
(3) A case filed for a dispute over a patent-related contract;
(4) A case filed for a dispute over patent infringement;
(5) A case filed for a dispute over counterfeiting another person's patent;
(6) A case filed for a dispute over fees for exploitation during provisional protection of a patent for invention;
(7) A case filed for a dispute over reward or remuneration of the inventor or designer of a service invention-creation;
(8) A case filed for a dispute over action preservation before a lawsuit is instituted;
(9) A case filed for a dispute over property preservation before a lawsuit is instituted;
(10) A case filed for a dispute over damage liability arising from an application of action preservation;
(11) A case filed for a dispute over damage liability arising from an application of property preservation ;(12) A case filed for a dispute over right to claim inventorship or designership of an invention-creation;
(13) A case filed for a dispute over confirmation of non-infringement of patent rights;
(14) A case filed for a dispute over refund of fees after the patent right is declared invalid;
(15) A case filed for a dispute over damage liability arising from malicious patent litigation;
(16) A case filed for a dispute over fees for exploitation of a standard-essential patent(17) A case filed against a decision of the patent administrative department under the State Council to sustain the dismissal of an application for review;
(18) A case filed against a decision of the patent administrative department under the State Council on a request for declaring invalidation of a patent;
(19) A case filed against a decision of the patent administrative department under the State Council to implement compulsory licensing;
(20) A case filed against a ruling of the patent administrative department of the State Council on royalties from the implementation of compulsory licensing;
(21) A case filed against an administrative reconsideration decision of the patent administrative department under the State Council;
(22) A case filed against other administrative decision made by the patent administrative department under the State Council;
(23) A case filed against an administrative decision of a department in charge of patent administration;
(24) A case filed for a dispute over confirmation on whether an accused technology falls within the protection scope of a patent;
(25) A case involving any other patent dispute.

Article 2 An action instituted for patent infringement shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place of infringement or at the place of domicile of the defendant.

The place of an infringement shall include the place where any of the following acts is committed: the act of manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the products that are complained of having infringed upon the patent for invention or utility model; the place of using the patented process, and the place of using, offering for sale, selling or importing the products that are directly obtained on the basis of that process; the place of manufacturing, offering for sale, selling, or importing the products of patented design; the place of counterfeiting the patent of others. And the place where the result of any of the aforesaid infringements occurred.

Article 3 Where the plaintiff sues the manufacturer of the infringing products but not the seller thereof, and the place where the infringing products are manufactured is not the place where they are sold, the people's court at the place where such products are manufactured shall exercise jurisdiction. Where the manufacturer and the seller are co-defendants, the people's court at the place where such products are sold shall exercise jurisdiction.

Where the seller is a branch of the manufacturer, and the plaintiff institutes an action at the place of sale against the manufacturer for the manufacturing and sale of the infringing products, the people's court at the place where such products are sold shall exercise jurisdiction.

Article 4 The plaintiff who institutes a patent infringement action alleging infringement upon the patent for utility model before October 1, 2009 may provide the retrieval report made by the patent administrative department of the State Council. The plaintiff who institutes a patent infringement action alleging infringement upon the patent for utility model or design on or after October 1, 2009 may provide the patent assessment report made by the patent administrative department of the State Council. As required for the adjudication of a case, the people's court may require the plaintiff to submit the retrieval report or the patent assessment report. Where the plaintiff fails to submit the report without any justifiable cause, the people's court may render a ruling to suspend the action or rule to order the plaintiff to assume potential adverse consequences.

Where the defendant in a case involving a dispute over infringement upon a utility model or design patent requests suspension of the action, the defendant shall file a request for declaring invalidation of the plaintiff's patent during the period of submitting a statement of defense.

Article 5 Where, in a case involving a dispute over infringement upon a utility model or design patent, the defendant files a request for declaring invalidation of the patent during the period of submitting a statement of defense, the people's court trying the case shall suspend the action. However, under any of the following circumstances, the people's court may rule not to suspend the action:
(1) The retrieval report or patent assessment report provided by the plaintiff does not contain any cause that leads to the invalidation of the patent for utility model or design.
(2) Evidence provided by the defendant is sufficient to prove that the technology used by the defendant is in the public domain.
(3) The defendant's evidence or reason for a request for declaring invalidation of the patent is apparently insufficient.
(4) The people's court otherwise deems that the action shall not be suspended.

Article 6 Where, in a case involving a dispute over infringement upon a utility model or design patent, the defendant files a request for declaring invalidation of the patent after the period of submitting a statement of defense ends, the people's court trying the case shall not suspend the action, unless it deems the suspension necessary after review.

Article 7 Where, in a case involving a dispute over infringement upon an invention patent or over infringement upon a utility model or design patent which has been sustained by the Patent Review Board, the defendant files a request for declaring invalidation of the patent during the period of submitting a statement of defense, the people's court trying the case may rule not to suspend the action.

Article 8 Where a people's court decides to suspend an action, and the patent owner or an interested party requests the court to order the defendant to cease the relevant activities or requests the adoption of any other measures to prevent further damage from the infringement and provides security, the people's court may issue a relevant ruling when ruling to suspend the action if it finds that the relevant legal provisions are complied with.

Article 9 To implement property preservation for a patent, the people's court shall issue a Notice of Assistance in Enforcement to the patent administrative department of the State Council, stating the subject matter of the required assistance in enforcement and the period of property preservation for the patent, with the written ruling of the people's court attached thereto.

Each period of property preservation for a patent shall not exceed six months, starting from the day when the patent administrative department of the State Council receives the Notice of Assistance in Enforcement. The people's court shall serve another Notice of Assistance in Enforcement for further preservation on the patent administrative department of the State Council before the period of property preservation ends if any preservation measure for the patent is still necessary. If such a notice is not served before the period of property preservation ends, property preservation for the patent shall be deemed to have been automatically removed.

The people's court may take property preservation measures for a pledged patent, and the pledgee's preemptive right to repayment shall not be affected by any preservation measure. An exclusive licensing contract between the patent owner and the licensee shall not affect property preservation implemented by the people's court for the patent.

Where property preservation has been implemented by the people's court for a patent, no duplicate preservation shall be allowed.

Article 10 Where an entity and the inventor or designer have entered into a contract for an invention completed before July 1, 2001, by utilization of material and technical resources of the entity, if the contract provides for the right to apply for a patent and the ownership of the patent, such provisions shall prevail.

Article 11 Where a patent infringement case involves any conflict of rights, the people's court trying the case shall protect the lawful rights and interests of the party with a prior right in accordance with the law.

Article 12 As mentioned in Article 23 of the Patent Law, “lawful rights that have been obtained by any other person prior to the date of application” includes but is not limited to trademark right, copyright, right of an enterprise in its name, right of image, and right to use the unique packaging or decoration of a famous product.

Article 13 The extent of protection of the patent for invention or utility model shall be determined by the terms of the claims. The descriptions and attached diagrams may be used to interpret the claims” as mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 59  of the Patent Law means that the extent of protection of the patent shall be determined by the extent determined by all technical features indicated in the claims, and shall also include the extent determined by the features that are equal to those technical features.

Equivalent features mean the features that use similar means, realize similar functions and achieve similar effects as the technical features indicated in the claims, and that the ordinary technicians of the pertinent field may associate with these features without creative work when the alleged infringement occurs.


Article 14 The actual loss of the patentee due to the infringement as prescribed in Article 65  of the Patent Law may be calculated by multiplying the total amount of the decreased sales of the patentee's patented products due to the infringement by the reasonable profit of each patented product. Where it is difficult to determine the total amount of the decreased sales of the patentee, the product of multiplying the total amount of the infringing products sold on the market by the reasonable profit of each patented product may be deemed as the actual loss of the patentee due to the infringement.

The benefits obtained by the infringer from the infringement as prescribed in Article 65  of the Patent Law may be calculated according to the product of multiplying the total amount of that infringing product sold on the market by the reasonable profit of each infringing product. Generally, the benefits obtained by the infringer from the infringement are calculated according to the business profits of the infringer, as to the infringer that depends on infringement as his or her job, the loss may be calculated according to the sales profits.

Article 15 Where it is difficult to determine the loss of the infringed or the benefits obtained by the infringer, and there is licensing royalty for reference, the people's court may reasonably determine the amount of compensation by referring to the times of that licensing royalty, according to the type of the patent right, the nature and circumstances of the infringement, and the nature, scope, and time of that patent license and other factors; if there is no licensing royalty for reference or the licensing royalty is evidently unreasonable, the people's court may, according to paragraph 2 of Article 65  of the Patent Law, determine the amount of compensation according to the patent type, the nature and circumstances of the infringement and other factors.
Article 16 Where the patentee claims the payment for its reasonable expenses incurred to cease the infringement, the people's court may calculate it separately in addition to the amount of compensation determined in accordance with Article 65  of the Patent Law.

Article 17 The time limitation for instituting an action for patent infringement shall be three years, starting from the day when the patent owner or an interested party knows or should have known that his right has been harmed and that who the obligor is. Where the right owner institutes an action after the aforesaid three-year period, if the alleged infringement continues when the action is instituted, the people's court shall, during the validity period of the patent, adjudicate that the defendant should cease the infringement, and the damages for the infringement shall be calculated as per the three years before the right owner institutes the action in the people's court.

Article 18 The offering for sale as mentioned in Articles 11 and 69  of the Patent Law means making the manifestation of intention to sell the commodities by advertising, displaying them in shop windows or in exhibitions.

Article 19 Where a department in charge of patent administration has made a determination of infringement or non-infringement for a patent infringement case, the people's court trying the case shall, nonetheless, comprehensively examine a party's claims.

Article20 For any discrepancies between any previous relevant judicial interpretations and these Provisions, these Provisions shall prevail.